Hi,Have any of your considered a young earth scenario, before the flood, where there was 'no' canopy and oxygen levels were higher than today? I'm interested in the dynamics between weather, man, animals, etc.

I would like to get your thoughts on such matters given the scenario above.

Would you still expect tropical climate worldwide without a canopy?

Or could there have been temperature changes moving from the equator?

Could there have been cool weather or even ice caps at the poles?

Could creatures like dinosaurs and whoolly mammoths coexist during the same time period on a pre-flood earth.

Would there earth have been tilted?

Were seasonal changes necessary? Did they occur? E.g. giving the earth a break in winter to allow for decomposition of organic matter to replenish the earth for spring time?

How about migration patterns?

Was animal density affected by the human population? E.g. men hunted and killed off the terrible beasts so that they only survived and grew where man did not explore/settle?

Imagination is fine. I'm very interested in what it might have been like.

I was writing a short story this weekend about a time before the flood. There's a scene involving a cart with wheels. I naturally had it pulled by an ox. I'm assuming that man was bright enough to have engineered and built wheels. However, I could have picked a giant 8 foot long beaver, or a whoolly rhino to pull the cart. Naturally I'm curious how animals we know of today would have coexisted with animals no longer around.

I'm looking for a young earth, creationist perspective on this matter.

From a biblical standpoint, below is the text of an essay I wrote many years back on the subject of predation before the flood which was published in the RMCF Newsletter (although it predates the issues they now have available online). I think it plainly spells out my position on the question of whether animals were carnivorous before the flood from a biblical standpoint.Enjoy

It has become popular in Creationist circles to suppose that animals were not carnivorous before the Flood. When I first encountered this idea some eighteen years ago in Paul S. Taylor’s children’s book “The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible,” I dismissed it as an odd curiosity based on poor hermeneutics that would simply fade away. To the contrary, however, I seem to encounter it more than ever today. On the surface this idea seems to be consistent with Scripture. In Genesis 1:30, for example, God says "Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food" (all Scripture quotations are from the New King James version unless otherwise noted). The next time that diet is specifically mentioned is not until after the Flood in Genesis 9:3 where God tells Noah, "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.” Despite this apparent confirmation, the assumption that animals were not carnivorous until after the Flood is not consistent with what Scripture says about the condition of the Pre-Flood world.

In order to see this inconsistency we first of all must do a simple word study, or more properly, a phrase study. The phrase “all flesh,” which in the Hebrew is (kol basar), occurs thirteen times in Genesis chapters 6-9, or, in other words, in the context of the Flood and its aftermath. Specifically, it is found in Genesis 6:12,13,17,19; 7:15,16,21; 8:17; 9:11,15a,15b,16,17. Three of those times it is explicitly defined. In Genesis 6:19, for example, God tells Noah “And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark,” and He lists them in Genesis6:20--"Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind.” In Genesis 8:17 He gives a similar listing--"Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” In Genesis 7:21 we are given an exhaustive listing of what “all flesh” refers to where it says “And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.”In many of the other occurrences the phrase “all flesh” is implicitly defined in the same way. In Genesis 9:9-11, for example, God tells Noah “…I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you, and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth…Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood.” In short, the phrase “all flesh” is clearly and consistently defined and used throughout this context to refer to all terrestrial creatures and not just man. It includes man, and the fact that man is also flesh is what God gave as being the problem with man in Genesis 6:3. Nowhere, however, is the phrase “all flesh” defined as a synonym for only man. It is important to recognize this usage of the term “all flesh” because the first two times it is used in Genesis 6:12 & 6:13 has a direct bearing on the question of whether or not animals were carnivorous before the Flood.

Gen 6:11-13The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth. (Emphasis added)

The main problem with the notion that animals were not carnivorous before the Flood is presented by the verses above. If animals were not carnivorous before the Flood, if animals were not killing and preying upon and eating each other before the Flood, then what was the violence with which they had filled the earth? Granted not all violence that occurs among animals is predation. When a Cape buffalo mauls and kills a lion cub, for example, he is not doing so to feed a hungry belly. When two male Hippopotami battle each other over territory and one fatally wounds the other, dinner is not what is directly on their mind. The most common form of violence among animals today, however, is predation and without predation verse 13 becomes almost inexplicable. Were animals just arbitrarily battling and killing each other for any or all reasons other than food? The more reasonable explanation is that animals had begun preying on each other long before the Flood. Regardless, the image of animals complacently and peacefully coexisting is not consistent with the picture Scripture paints of the Post-Fall, Pre-Flood world.

As an afterword I would like to point out that the New International Version (NIV) erroneously mistranslates “all flesh” as “all people” in Genesis 6:12 & 6:13. Then it obscures this mistranslation by either not translating it at all (e.g. Gen 6:19), or rendering it as “every living thing” or “all life” where, without resorting to another version or the original Hebrew, you would never know that God uses the exact same phrase in Genesis 6:12 & 6:13 that He uses when referring to animals. Be very wary of building or basing doctrines on interpretive paraphrases like the NIV without consulting other more literal and consistent translations.

P.S. Wow! I just previewed my post and I love that RefTagger for the scripture verses.

Quote: "if animals were not killing and preying upon and eating each other before the Flood, then what was the violence with which they had filled the earth?"

That's a puzzling statement.

It wasn't animal violence that was spoken of there, it was violence of man to man. Man is the sinner who was violent before God, not the animals who do not sin. The punishment came upon man. The rest of the world of living organisms might be classified as collateral damage(?)...for lack of a better term for it. It was man's sin God judged, not the animals.

It wasn't animal violence that was spoken of there, it was violence of man to man. Man is the sinner who was violent before God, not the animals who do not sin. The punishment came upon man. The rest of the world of living organisms might be classified as collateral damage(?)...for lack of a better term for it. It was man's sin God judged, not the animals.

I would strongly beg to differ, friend. God looked at the behavior of man in the previous verses and characterized it as "wickedness" and "evil continually" (Genesis 6:5). Yes, the primary reason for the flood was the sin of man. However, having determined to destroy man, He then looks at the earth and, "Behold, it was corrupted" (a literal translation of the Hebrew-hinneh, nishchatah), for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth (Genesis 6:12), and the earth was filled with violence through them (Genesis 6:13). Nowhere, however, is that violence characterized as wickedness, evil, or sin, anymore than you would characterize the behavior of a rabid dog as wickedness, evil, or sin. You still have to put the rabid dog down to stop the behavior, but there's no moral implication of sin on the part of the dog.Or would you argue, contrary to how the term "all flesh" is used to refer to more than just man throughout the flood narrative as I demonstrate in the essay above, that suddenly, in this particular instance, He uses the term "all flesh" to refer to only man? And would you characterize the violence that a present day lion employs in bringing down a zebra as sin, or wickedness, or evil? Violence and sin don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Hi,
@Bonedigger,
Thanks for the links and the excerpt from your paper.

I'm okay accepting the idea that nature changed as a consequence of man's sin. For example, in Gen. 3 we learn the flora took a big hit, allowing thorns and thistles to grow, competing with the plants of the field.

Before man's fall, God brought all kinds of cattle, birds, and the beasts of the field. This suggested that animals did not fear man. I'm speculating the fear we see today between animals and man came immediately after the fall.

I can accept the idea of a T-Rex, before the fall of man satisfying its appetite as a herbivore. Somehow, a 'restraint' was removed.

Consider a chimpanzee today. In an ideal condition it is content eating new leaves and fruit in the rain forest. If an external factor was introduced (e.g. forest fire, man's encroachment and destruction of the forest) then the chimpanzee, starving, or competing with the other 20-30 chimps in its community, might eat a monkey. Today they eat monkeys and other small critters during dry spells.

How about pre-flood migration patterns? Patterns observed today are generally triggered these days by seasonal changes. If the earth was not tilted 23.4 degrees until the flood, then the climate at each latitude would have remained relatively the same. I figure there were two principal drivers behind any kind of migration before the flood.

The first driver would be large herbivores moving from one region to the next, following the food source. The could eventually return after the foliage they consumed had been replenished. Predators could follow.

The second driver could be men as they inhabited more of the earth. Animals or the animal food sources may have been hunted and killed.

??? Are there any thoughts on migration? Any other possibilities in this scenario?

I would strongly beg to differ, friend. God looked at the behavior of man in the previous verses and characterized it as "wickedness" and "evil continually" (Genesis 6:5). Yes, the primary reason for the flood was the sin of man. However, having determined to destroy man, He then looks at the earth and, "Behold, it was corrupted" (a literal translation of the Hebrew-hinneh, nishchatah), for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth (Genesis 6:12), and the earth was filled with violence through them (Genesis 6:13). Nowhere, however, is that violence characterized as wickedness, evil, or sin, anymore than you would characterize the behavior of a rabid dog as wickedness, evil, or sin. You still have to put the rabid dog down to stop the behavior, but there's no moral implication of sin on the part of the dog.Or would you argue, contrary to how the term "all flesh" is used to refer to more than just man throughout the flood narrative as I demonstrate in the essay above, that suddenly, in this particular instance, He uses the term "all flesh" to refer to only man? And would you characterize the violence that a present day lion employs in bringing down a zebra as sin, or wickedness, or evil? Violence and sin don't necessarily go hand in hand.

True.Sin is always evil but violence is not always sin. My point was/is that it is for the sin of man that the world was wicked and therefore judged. What the animals did by nature was not under consideration in that judgment.

But, I respect you so much that I don't wish to argue with you over what is perhaps a minor point.

True.Sin is always evil but violence is not always sin. My point was/is that it is for the sin of man that the world was wicked and therefore judged. What the animals did by nature was not under consideration in that judgment. But, I respect you so much that I don't wish to argue with you over what is perhaps a minor point. Keep posting, my brother. I enjoy reading what you have to say.

Thanks Calypsis, the respect is mutual. And i do plan on continuing posting as I find the time and am able to contribute.